Renzey's Ace/10 Front Count

[SPX]

Quick question. . .

I was perusing the Bluebook last night and decided to re-read the Ace/10 chapter and it made me wonder. . .

Fred says, "Anytime 36 or fewer Ace/10s come out in the first two decks, you'll have an edge over the house."

So. . . What if a flat bettor (and say they couldn't commit to any sort of bet ramping due to bankroll restrictions) ONLY played shoes that qualified under the Ace/10 front count, wouldn't he technically be playing with a positive expectation even if he only ultimately came out ahead by a very small amount?

 

[sagefr0g]

Quick question. . .

I was perusing the Bluebook last night and decided to re-read the Ace/10 chapter and it made me wonder. . .

Fred says, "Anytime 36 or fewer Ace/10s come out in the first two decks, you'll have an edge over the house."

So. . . What if a flat bettor (and say they couldn't commit to any sort of bet ramping due to bankroll restrictions) ONLY played shoes that qualified under the Ace/10 front count, wouldn't he technically be playing with a positive expectation even if he only ultimately came out ahead by a very small amount?

i'm not sure about that very small edge you ask about.......
but the ace/ten front count requires a very specific betting ramp and method of wonging into and out of shoes. that being said even then the edge is very small. so if you were to just flat bet using the ace/ten front count that small edge would be even smaller if there even would be an edge at all.

 

[SPX]

i'm not sure about that very small edge you ask about.......
but the ace/ten front count requires a very specific betting ramp and method of wonging into and out of shoes. that being said even then the edge is very small. so if you were to just flat bet using the ace/ten front count that small edge would be even smaller if there even would be an edge at all.

Well with the bet ramp it seems that the edge can very between .25% and .40% depending upon the specific conditions of the game.

So I do have to wonder, after thinking about it last night, if a flat better would at least have SOME sort of advantage provided he gets in at the right times and gets out at the right times.

Or, if you wouldn't have an advantage, would you at least NOT have a disadvantage?

Say, a flat bettor who plays perfect BS in a standard 6 deck game, who also employs knowledge of composition-dependent and board condition strategy a la Bluebook chapter 6, and who selects his tables according to Renzey's Ace/10 suggestions so that he only plays when the deck favors the player. . .

Hmm. . .

What do you think?

 

[sagefr0g]

Well with the bet ramp it seems that the edge can very between .25% and .40% depending upon the specific conditions of the game.

So I do have to wonder, after thinking about it last night, if a flat better would at least have SOME sort of advantage provided he gets in at the right times and gets out at the right times.

Or, if you wouldn't have an advantage, would you at least NOT have a disadvantage?

Say, a flat bettor who plays perfect BS in a standard 6 deck game, who also employs knowledge of composition-dependent and board condition strategy a la Bluebook chapter 6, and who selects his tables according to Renzey's Ace/10 suggestions so that he only plays when the deck favors the player. . .

Hmm. . .

What do you think?

i really couldn't say. but here is where i think the problem with such a scenerio would be. as i remmember the way the tables are selected there are times when the player just sits down and plays (not wonging in). with no bet ramp in those instances a flat bet player would be at a disadvantage.
so i guess if one never just sat at a fresh table but always used the ace/ten count to decide when to wong in and then flat bet perhaps there would be some edge or at least a nearly even playing field.

 

[Renzey]

Quick question. . .Fred says, "Anytime 36 or fewer Ace/10s come out in the first two decks, you'll have an edge over the house."
So. . . What if a flat bettor ONLY played shoes that qualified under the Ace/10 front count, wouldn't he technically be playing with a positive expectation?

In a word, Yes. An Ace/10 Front Count of "36" is virtually equivalent to a Hi/Lo true count of +1.6. If you play only those 6 deck shoes that have a front count of "36" or lower, you'll be playing that 20% of the shoes which start off the last four decks with, and have an average player edge of 0.35% or higher. You'd be playing with a "modified" shoe, and would be using an appropriately modified basic strategy.

It would in effect, be exactly the same as taking a full four deck shoe, pulling out at least four 2's thru 9's at random, and inserting an identical number of extra Ace/10's. Then you'd play a basic strategy tailored to that deck composition. You could flat bet, and have on average, over a half percent advantage (since some front counts will be "35", or "34", etc.).

The reason the standard Ace/10 Front Count strategy yields only around a quarter percent edge is that you play many shoes off the top, without backcounting first to qualify them.

 

[Renzey]

Ace/10 Front Count

I should add that it's just a very simple, but somewhat weak counting system a player could use to become a flat betting wonger.

 

[SPX]

In a word, Yes. An Ace/10 Front Count of "36" is virtually equivalent to a Hi/Lo true count of +1.6. If you play only those 6 deck shoes that have a front count of "36" or lower, you'll be playing that 20% of the shoes which start off the last four decks with, and have an average player edge of 0.35% or higher. You'd be playing with a "modified" shoe, and would be using an appropriately modified basic strategy.

It would in effect, be exactly the same as taking a full four deck shoe, pulling out at least four 2's thru 9's at random, and inserting an identical number of extra Ace/10's. Then you'd play a basic strategy tailored to that deck composition. You could flat bet, and have on average, over a half percent advantage (since some front counts will be "35", or "34", etc.).

The reason the standard Ace/10 Front Count strategy yields only around a quarter percent edge is that you play many shoes off the top, without backcounting first to qualify them.

Thanks for the freedback! That's what I needed to know. If I you ever write Blackjack Bluebook III then it might not be bad to write a little section on this because many people, like myself, are definitely bankroll-challenged.

We don't really have to money to endure the swings of counting but we still would like to play with some sort of advantage, regardless of how small it may be.

I'm glad my mind wandered down this path of reasoning because it seems like sort of a middleground between counting and playing against the house edge. I could, perhaps, couple the Ace/10 with the progression I've been playing lately.

Too bad in Wendover all we have is single deck. As strange a comment as I'm sure it will seem to people around here, in some ways I really do miss the shoe game.

 

[sagefr0g]

..........
We don't really have to money to endure the swings of counting but we still would like to play with some sort of advantage, regardless of how small it may be.

I'm glad my mind wandered down this path of reasoning because it seems like sort of a middleground between counting and playing against the house edge..

.......

i used to use the ace/ten front count. had great success with it but be aware that you will experience big swings with it as much or probably more so than with a full blown count. well i didn't use it precisely as Renzey recommended. i mainly wonged out using it, didn't wong in much with it.
but i do find your reasoning interesting as well. i guess wonging in only with the ace/ten count would be a reasonable midldleground between counting and playing against the house edge.

 

[SPX]

i used to use the ace/ten front count. had great success with it but be aware that you will experience big swings with it as much or probably more so than with a full blown count. well i didn't use it precisely as Renzey recommended. i mainly wonged out using it, didn't wong in much with it.
but i do find your reasoning interesting as well. i guess wonging in only with the ace/ten count would be a reasonable midldleground between counting and playing against the house edge.

Well, consider it. It really only takes a bit of time, patience and concentration to sit there in front of a table for the first couple of decks and make sure that it's a good table to play on. And like Renzey said, once it's qualified, even if you are a flat bettor you are no longer playing against the house edge.

Seems like for people who flat bet or play a progression that it would be a good tool to have in their arsenal.

 

[Doofus]

As somebody who has had difficulty keeping a true count out of a shoe, I used Fred's strategy this past weekend, and it worked out marvelously. I want to thank Fred for his excellent book and for this simplified strategy, which was easy enough for me to employ and still be able to enjoy the game for what it is.

 

[dangeroso]

Wow, I'm new to the board, and am reading the Blackjack Bluebook right now. I didn't expect to find the author here.

It's been a great read, and very educational thus far.

 

[SPX]

As somebody who has had difficulty keeping a true count out of a shoe, I used Fred's strategy this past weekend, and it worked out marvelously. I want to thank Fred for his excellent book and for this simplified strategy, which was easy enough for me to employ and still be able to enjoy the game for what it is.

I overlooked the Ace/10 the first time read Bluebook, but after giving it another glance I've come to the conclusion that it's a real gem with a lot of potential to be used in a lot of ways.

 

[SPX]

Wow, I'm new to the board, and am reading the Blackjack Bluebook right now. I didn't expect to find the author here.

It's been a great read, and very educational thus far.

Fred seems to only pop up on rare occasion, but when he does he always has something useful to say.

By the way, I used to live in Dallas just a few years ago. How are things in the Big D these days? Where do you play blackjack around there? Do you go up into Oklahoma?

 

[dangeroso]

Fred seems to only pop up on rare occasion, but when he does he always has something useful to say.

By the way, I used to live in Dallas just a few years ago. How are things in the Big D these days? Where do you play blackjack around there? Do you go up into Oklahoma?

Honestly, I'm new to Blackjack. I played in Vegas in December for the first time, and the MGM Grand Detroit 2 weeks ago on a business trip. I suppose I'll venture up to Oklahoma or out to Shreveport in the near future though.

 

[EasyRhino]

Go to Shreveport, you won't have to pay an ante each hand.

 

[Kasi]

It really only takes a bit of time, patience and concentration to sit there in front of a table for the first couple of decks and make sure that it's a good table to play on. And like Renzey said, once it's qualified, even if you are a flat bettor you are no longer playing against the house edge.

Don't really know the count or anything but it sounds like you would only be playing like 5 hands out of every 100 seen? Of course if every hand you play is +EV, then you must have an overall advantage whether you bet 1 cent or $1000 lol.

So, with a $10 flat-bet, that's 25 cents an hour?

Nothing wrong with that.

But of course you're still subject to swings lol.

Like if your bankroll is $100 clearly it's not too hard to lose 10 units even with a constant + EV.

If it's $10K, you could play alot longer lol.

How do you go about deciding if your "bankroll-challenged" bankroll, whatever it is, whether that bankroll will support the minimum bet or not or, indeed, whether you can bet more than that with a risk of losing it all that's acceptable?

Not trying to scare you or anything because you're right it probably doesn't take a big bankroll in this situation to be pretty safe. Just something to maybe think about as you go down the road and have more or less funds to gamble with when you will bet more or less or begin spreading, etc. lol.

 

[Doofus]

Don't really know the count or anything but it sounds like you would only be playing like 5 hands out of every 100 seen? Of course if every hand you play is +EV, then you must have an overall advantage whether you bet 1 cent or $1000 lol.

So, with a $10 flat-bet, that's 25 cents an hour?

Nothing wrong with that.

But of course you're still subject to swings lol.

Like if your bankroll is $100 clearly it's not too hard to lose 10 units even with a constant + EV.

If it's $10K, you could play alot longer lol.

How do you go about deciding if your "bankroll-challenged" bankroll, whatever it is, whether that bankroll will support the minimum bet or not or, indeed, whether you can bet more than that with a risk of losing it all that's acceptable?

Not trying to scare you or anything because you're right it probably doesn't take a big bankroll in this situation to be pretty safe. Just something to maybe think about as you go down the road and have more or less funds to gamble with when you will bet more or less or begin spreading, etc. lol.

Because of the variability I think anybody, using any counting system, is going to have a high risk of going broke when playing with only a 10x bankroll. Hell, I lose five hands in a row all the time, it seems.

The Ace/10 Front Count, as I used it, gives you a really good shoe about one time out of five. It gives you a really bad shoe (and cues you to get up and move) one time out of five. The other three, you can muddle through. In a busy casino that allows mid-shoe entry, you can certainly use it to do some backcounting, though I think doing this every time is a quick road to getting backed off.

 

[Kasi]

Because of the variability I think anybody, using any counting system, is going to have a high risk of going broke when playing with only a 10x bankroll.

Of course you're right - I just meant in general, like you say, it can never hurt to try to figure out where you draw the line of what's enough even if you do play every hand at an advantage.

Just common sense really. But sometimes I fear people may tend to overestimate their invulnerability just because they know every hand they play is +EV.